Bibliographic record
Abstract
The debate is vigorous in psycho-oncology about whether spiritual, existential, and psychosocial are the most comprehensive terms for academic research discourses investigating meaning and purpose. A call-to-action email from the International Society of Psycho-Oncology included the term soul. The current essay highlights the historical and contemporary uses of "soul" to suggest that the re-emergent soul signifies a tacit quest for an "intangible" that seems missing in current constructs of clinical domains reflected in the vigor of the debates. It is suggested that the re-emergence of the pre-Medieval meaning(s) of the notion of soul affirms a growing need for integrative paradigms on "being human" to guide psycho-oncology practitioners and their research. As a paradigmatic example, a clinical support group entitled Soul Medicine is described as employing the term soul to open up the more marginal discourses about experiences of illness arising from philosophical reflection, arts, humanities, and spirituality within a clinical oncology context. A link between soul and wisdom is suggested for further exploration with the view that phronesis ("the virtue of practical wisdom"), an emerging concept in health professional education research, is of ultimate value to the people psycho-oncology seeks to serve. This group holds that garnering wisdom from the expertise of those living with cancer should be a central aim of our field.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".